Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Five reasons why this CNN politics man has bet on Marco Rub

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited October 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Five reasons why this CNN politics man has bet on Marco Rubio for the Republican nomination

I like the case has been made in this clip particularly the debate extract when Rubio is dealing with the language issue. The way he handled it is reminiscent of the conference speech Obama made in 2004 which brought him to prominence for the first time.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,841
    He's not outstanding, but he's probably the only one without a huge great weakness so is favourite by default.

    Not a charisma vacuum like Jeb Bush. Not as polarising or as hated by the party establishment as Trump. Not as batshit insane as Ted Cruz.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,607
    edited October 2015
    I haven't been following this closely enough to assess it but posting for balance:
    For all the buzz surrounding his campaign, the Florida senator isn't raising enough money and hasn't yet built much of a field organization.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/rubio-wake-up-call-214890
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,841
    George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 43m43 minutes ago
    Most Tories expect Douglas Carswell to defect back to them before the election, minister tells me.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    Danny565 said:

    He's not outstanding, but he's probably the only one without a huge great weakness so is favourite by default.

    Not a charisma vacuum like Jeb Bush. Not as polarising or as hated by the party establishment as Trump. Not as batshit insane as Ted Cruz.

    The worrying thing about this contest is that in 18 months' time one of the candidates in these debates will be President!
  • Sandpit said:

    Danny565 said:

    He's not outstanding, but he's probably the only one without a huge great weakness so is favourite by default.

    Not a charisma vacuum like Jeb Bush. Not as polarising or as hated by the party establishment as Trump. Not as batshit insane as Ted Cruz.

    The worrying thing about this contest is that in 18 months' time one of the candidates in these debates will be President!
    I'm not a fan of these political dynasties but at this point we just have to hope Malia enters the race.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,637

    Sandpit said:

    Danny565 said:

    He's not outstanding, but he's probably the only one without a huge great weakness so is favourite by default.

    Not a charisma vacuum like Jeb Bush. Not as polarising or as hated by the party establishment as Trump. Not as batshit insane as Ted Cruz.

    The worrying thing about this contest is that in 18 months' time one of the candidates in these debates will be President!
    I'm not a fan of these political dynasties but at this point we just have to hope Malia enters the race.
    If she is over 40 that represents an entirely new twist on the Birther issue!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    Towards the end of the 19th century, the US had several second rate presidents. It seems to have done it no harm at all in the long run. We may be entering a similar run for different reasons. Again, it may do the US no harm in the long run.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,868
    Danny565 said:

    George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 43m43 minutes ago
    Most Tories expect Douglas Carswell to defect back to them before the election, minister tells me.

    He's a decent MP and deserves better than UKIP. Surely it will depend on the referendum though.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    edited October 2015
    Mr. Antifrank, the Eastern Empire had lots of dodgy early emperors. That didn't stop it (over the centuries) increasing in power.

    But it also had some heroic ones towards the end. And that didn't stem the Turkish tide.

    America was on a long-term rise back then. It's not going to collapse (unlike the EU, sooner or later...), but in relative terms it's in decline.

    Edited extra bit: and for those of you sick of my modernist 10th century blogs recently, I'm working on something about the 4th century BC.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Yes, there is a touch of O about him.

    Rubio is not a natural born citizen either...

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” [my bold]
    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

    AIUI, Rubio's parents did not become citizens until 1975, four years after his birth...
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,574
    Danny565 said:

    George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 43m43 minutes ago
    Most Tories expect Douglas Carswell to defect back to them before the election, minister tells me.

    I would be surprised unless he's speculating on a post-Cameron era.
  • RodCrosby said:

    Yes, there is a touch of O about him.

    Rubio is not a natural born citizen either...

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” [my bold]
    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

    AIUI, Rubio's parents did not become citizens until 1975, four years after his birth...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,664

    RodCrosby said:

    Yes, there is a touch of O about him.

    Rubio is not a natural born citizen either...

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” [my bold]
    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

    AIUI, Rubio's parents did not become citizens until 1975, four years after his birth...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
    Sunil, I think it is well established that this is a Rod hobby horse and that his view is way off what is accepted in the US as the de facto reading. No-one challenged McCain, and the Birthers were ridiculed for challenging Obama. No-one has seriously challenged either Cruz or Rubio. So by practice alone, regardless of legal precedent, the case is settled against Rod.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,975
    antifrank said:

    Towards the end of the 19th century, the US had several second rate presidents. It seems to have done it no harm at all in the long run. We may be entering a similar run for different reasons. Again, it may do the US no harm in the long run.

    On the other hand, it had some poor ones at critical moments - Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson - which did do either it or the wider world a lot of harm.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,439
    We'd all settle for Rubio.

    My money's still on Fiorina because she's the best candidate in my view, but not-Trump, not-Bush, not-Clinton, and not-mad is the theme.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,975
    Oh, and on topic, I agree with Mike. Rubio is very well placed right now.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,664
    FPT @ David Herdson re morality and gods

    As I said, they don't exist beyond the intangible projections of men and women.

    Now if your argument is that you cannot win an argument over beliefs using solely reason and rationality, I'd agree one hundred percent. But you don't need to introduce gods into the equation in order to make that argument.
  • MTimT said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Yes, there is a touch of O about him.

    Rubio is not a natural born citizen either...

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” [my bold]
    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

    AIUI, Rubio's parents did not become citizens until 1975, four years after his birth...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
    Sunil, I think it is well established that this is a Rod hobby horse and that his view is way off what is accepted in the US as the de facto reading. No-one challenged McCain, and the Birthers were ridiculed for challenging Obama. No-one has seriously challenged either Cruz or Rubio. So by practice alone, regardless of legal precedent, the case is settled against Rod.
    MTimT, yes, I remember posting that URL only a few months ago!
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    RodCrosby said:

    Yes, there is a touch of O about him.

    Rubio is not a natural born citizen either...

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” [my bold]
    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

    AIUI, Rubio's parents did not become citizens until 1975, four years after his birth...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
    It sure is some conspiracy for the Framers and the Supreme Court to invent a law making Obama ineligible, some 100-200 years prior to his birth...
  • RodCrosby said:

    Yes, there is a touch of O about him.

    Rubio is not a natural born citizen either...

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” [my bold]
    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

    AIUI, Rubio's parents did not become citizens until 1975, four years after his birth...

    A natural born citizen according to Common Law in 1776 was any child born in the land including children of aliens (except for children of diplomats etc) as well as children born overseas of parents who were citizens themselves. That is still the law today. Rubio was born in the US and so is a natural born citizen, no ifs, no buts.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,664
    Mike, I agree Rubio, as the Establishment man with the momentum currently, has to be the frontrunner for the professional politicians in the GOP race. The challengers to that position, other than Bush who is going in the wrong direction, are Christie and Kasich, who are currently way out of touch but neither of whom would I write off at this stage.

    The only serious challenger to the Establishment man, whoever that ends up being, is Cruz, but I think he ultimately will prove to be the Pat Robinson candidate.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    I backed Rubio at 50/1.

    Unfortunately, that was five years ago and for the previous election.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,664
    :)

    I backed Rubio at 50/1.

    Unfortunately, that was five years ago and for the previous election.

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,241
    Marc O'Rubio - pitching for the Irish vote.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,241

    I backed Rubio at 50/1.

    Unfortunately, that was five years ago and for the previous election.

    Check your bet - if it was "to be next POTUS" you could still be a winner!
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Reminds me of O'Bama.

    Marc O'Rubio - pitching for the Irish vote.

  • RodCrosby said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Yes, there is a touch of O about him.

    Rubio is not a natural born citizen either...

    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” [my bold]
    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

    AIUI, Rubio's parents did not become citizens until 1975, four years after his birth...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
    It sure is some conspiracy for the Framers and the Supreme Court to invent a law making Obama ineligible, some 100-200 years prior to his birth...
    Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States, under clause 5:


    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    The Twelfth Amendment states, "No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
    The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase natural-born citizen. It does provide, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

    Under Article One of the United States Constitution, representatives and senators are only required to be U.S. citizens.[5][6]

    Eight of the first nine presidents – Martin Van Buren being the exception – as well as early potential presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British America before the American Revolution but were eligible for the office by virtue of having been citizens at the time that the Constitution was adopted.[7]
  • FPT

    MTimT said:

    It's inappropriate to apply the morals of humans to deities; they exist on a different plane.

    No they don't. They don't exist. (beyond the intangible projections of men and women).
    They do exist. At the minimum they exist in people's mind and many societies' collective consciousnesses.

    But either way it implies that to try to rationalise with and persuade god(s) on the same basis as one would with humans is both arrogant and absurd.
    God(s) don't exist except as Tim said in the minds of the people who believe in them. That you say they exist in peoples minds does not alter that.

    But how can one rationalise and persuade fictional characters? Surely you can only attempt to persuade believers, who actually exist, rather than try and persuade figments of the imagination that don't. Trying to persuade a god is like trying to persuade a poltergeist or ghost for a sceptic. Either way I don't see how arrogance enters into it. Absurdity is obviously in the equation since we're talking about myths.
  • Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.

    The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited October 2015
    One key world on why Rubio will not get the nomination:
    Immigration

    He loves it, the republican voters hate it so much they are willing to vote for Trump.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,392
    Anyone wired into what's going on in Canada?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited October 2015
    Switzerland’s anti-immigrant People’s Party [SVP] comes top in parly elections, winning nearly third of vote - its highest score http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4590190.ece
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,586

    Anyone wired into what's going on in Canada?

    I think there is an election?

    ...oh, that's my coat! :D
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    edited October 2015
    Miss Plato, one hopes that wrote Merkel a thank you letter.

    Edited extra bit: they*
  • Reminds me of O'Bama.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xkw8ip43Vk

    Marc O'Rubio - pitching for the Irish vote.

    Obama Beach :lol:
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited October 2015
    ''Switzerland’s anti-immigrant People’s Party [SVP] comes top in parly elections, winning nearly third of vote - its highest score''.

    http://www.politico.eu/article/poll-marion-le-pen-headed-for-victory-france-national-front-elections/

    Holland. Switzerland. And France.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Boris Johnson says he'd like some attention whilst he reminds people he exists and what sort of stance he might take if he becomes Prime Minister:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34573602

    And some blathering about tax credits.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,267

    Mr. Antifrank, the Eastern Empire had lots of dodgy early emperors. That didn't stop it (over the centuries) increasing in power.

    But it also had some heroic ones towards the end. And that didn't stem the Turkish tide.

    America was on a long-term rise back then. It's not going to collapse (unlike the EU, sooner or later...), but in relative terms it's in decline.

    Edited extra bit: and for those of you sick of my modernist 10th century blogs recently, I'm working on something about the 4th century BC.

    Are you consulting Jack W? Might be wise.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    King Cole, it's rather far afield from Scotland (or Caledonia, indeed), so I'm not sure Mr. W could be of help (besides, as there are a number of ladies involved I wouldn't want past assignations to get him in trouble with his lady wife).
  • antifrank said:

    Towards the end of the 19th century, the US had several second rate presidents. It seems to have done it no harm at all in the long run. We may be entering a similar run for different reasons. Again, it may do the US no harm in the long run.

    Brilliant men and women tend to have flaws and unhelpful back histories of one kind or another. It makes running for President very difficult. Trump can manage it only because at root he is an imbecile.

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,439

    Miss Plato, one hopes that wrote Merkel a thank you letter.

    Edited extra bit: they*

    I wonder what the Germans will make of Merkel long term? She really is an astonishing force. I simply cannot reconcile her embracing all approach with what I know of the German people. I've no idea whether she's right or wrong, but she is changing everything about Germany.

    Maggie was a similar force in the UK, although I think not as great. We're still to some extent defining our politics relative to her now. As Merkel seems a greater force, and as there's a bigger vacuum for admirable politicians in the recent German history she seems to be destined for quite a historical mark.

    The US, and France need to undergo a similar 'right of passage'.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    edited October 2015
    What's the lowest the lib dems have ever polled???
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. Omnium, Commodus was a great historical force too, yet practically nobody [who isn't into history] has even heard of Antoninus Pius.

    Merkel's legacy will depend on how the migration crisis plays out. My fear is it'll go terribly, attract millions from the Middle East and Africa, and also badly affect other European countries (most obviously those south of Germany) and Germany's relationship with those countries.

    Rome tried to replenish its strength by using barbarian muscle. Within a century or so of Valentinian's death Rome fell and an Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy emerged. There are stronger national sentiments and institutions now, but a massive impact will still be felt, I suspect.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Bet she's thrilled at the new series of Homeland...
    Omnium said:

    Miss Plato, one hopes that wrote Merkel a thank you letter.

    Edited extra bit: they*

    I wonder what the Germans will make of Merkel long term? She really is an astonishing force. I simply cannot reconcile her embracing all approach with what I know of the German people. I've no idea whether she's right or wrong, but she is changing everything about Germany.

    Maggie was a similar force in the UK, although I think not as great. We're still to some extent defining our politics relative to her now. As Merkel seems a greater force, and as there's a bigger vacuum for admirable politicians in the recent German history she seems to be destined for quite a historical mark.

    The US, and France need to undergo a similar 'right of passage'.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    isam said:

    What's the lowest the lib dems have ever polled???

    I think that Opinium poll rating for them of 5% today is the lowest ever.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737



    A natural born citizen according to Common Law in 1776 was any child born in the land including children of aliens (except for children of diplomats etc) as well as children born overseas of parents who were citizens themselves. That is still the law today. Rubio was born in the US and so is a natural born citizen, no ifs, no buts.

    Strange then the Supreme Court has on numerous occasion held the contrary opinion, and never held the one you claim...

    "...children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights" (The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814))

    If the plaintiff was born on U.S. soil, of British parents, "his infancy incapacitated him from making an election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father ..." (Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830))

    "If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country." (Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830))

    "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. (Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.)" described as 'unexceptionable' (beyond criticism or objection) in Scott v Sandford (1857) 60 U.S. 393

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' ... The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." Slaughter-House Cases, (1873) 83 U.S. 36, 38

    To this date, the USSC has never referred to anyone as an nbc, except those born in a country of parents who were citizens...
  • Mr Dancer, a view of Wikipedia's front page has alerted me to events exactly 2217 years ago today.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/david-camerons-renegotiation-appears-to-be-underwhelming-his-own-mps/

    Tax credit cuts???? Nah....this is the real time bomb under the tories. And its ticking
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    edited October 2015
    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    What's the lowest the lib dems have ever polled???

    I think that Opinium poll rating for them of 5% today is the lowest ever.
    I thought it might be

    Blimey they are in a mess... Seems the coalition has absolutely ruined them.

    I wonder how they can relaunch?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Dr. Prasannan, huzzah!

    The Second Punic War is a fascinating conflict, Dr. Prasannan, from the family rivalries, the internal political battles, the intriguing Numidian warfare, Hannibal's brilliant marches, the skills of Marcellus, Nero, Scipio and Quintus Fabius Maximus, all the way to the ultimate result.

    It's got the biggest ambush in military history, the most audacious march in military history, and the most impressive battlefield victory in military history.

    Miss Plato, it's very topical, the timing's as good as when the Sepp Blatter hagiography of a film was released to flop gloriously.
  • isam said:

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    What's the lowest the lib dems have ever polled???

    I think that Opinium poll rating for them of 5% today is the lowest ever.
    I thought it might be

    Blimey they are in a mess... Seems the coalition has absolutely ruined them.

    I wonder how they can relaunch?
    Form a new party with the likes of Liz Kendall and the remaining Blairites
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. Isam, if they'd gone for Lamb, as I'd advocated, they'd be in a better place to be a boring, steady, soft-left place that Labour supporters who aren't also communists could safely retreat whilst Corbyn ruins the reds with madness.

    Farron should still benefit, but he may come across as a hectoring lecturing self-righteous zealot.
  • isam said:

    What's the lowest the lib dems have ever polled???

    Depending on team news I am going to dutch Shelvey and Adam to be booked tonight
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.

    The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.

    Epic fail.

    The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and thus became part of the Constitution. Seven years later the USSC said...

    "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." [my bold] Minor v Happersett (1875)
  • runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    Off Beachy Head perhaps? Sandals off first though
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    What's the lowest the lib dems have ever polled???

    I think that Opinium poll rating for them of 5% today is the lowest ever.
    I thought it might be

    Blimey they are in a mess... Seems the coalition has absolutely ruined them.

    I wonder how they can relaunch?
    There is no longer a reason for voting Lib Dem. They're too small to make them a viable check on either main party, their liberalism is tainted in the minds of too many with their spell in government with the Conservatives to make an appeal to the principled left unlikely to succeed and there are more credible receptacles of protest votes. And all their incumbents are excumbents now.

    Unless they can think of a reason for their own existence that convinces anyone else, they're royally buggered.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,815
    taffys said:

    http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/david-camerons-renegotiation-appears-to-be-underwhelming-his-own-mps/

    Tax credit cuts???? Nah....this is the real time bomb under the tories. And its ticking

    A distinct lack of not paying attention to Cameron's previous modus operandi in evidence there..

    1) Grand plan
    2) Incite commentators into with "lazy", "lacklustre" tirades.
    3) Win


  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    taffys said:

    http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/david-camerons-renegotiation-appears-to-be-underwhelming-his-own-mps/

    Tax credit cuts???? Nah....this is the real time bomb under the tories. And its ticking

    I can only think David Cameron is deliberately softballing our expectations here, to use an American term. The four mentioned so far are either very weak or deliberately vague.:

    - An opt-out from ever closer union. No practical effect at all.
    - A more competitive EU. This sounds like the same gradualist fiddling that we've always had, unless there is something major here, like liberalisation of agriculture.
    - Single market protections. This could mean anything. I suppose this one could be code for the red card system or a double QMV system. That would be big if we get it done properly.
    - An end to abuses of free movement. Again, this is so vague it could mean anything. Previously it has been leaked as a four year ban on benefits, so he probably means that. But the abuse we really need to end is liberal giving out of passports, which is what could really put us in trouble from the current migrant crisis.

    Cameron must surely have something big up his sleeve, because only the total uninformed or the incredibly biased could describe that as a successful negotiation.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Form a new party with the likes of Liz Kendall and the remaining Blairites.''

    I read today that Tim Farron called on the PM to call on the Hungarian PM to re-open borders.

    Empty gesture politics against the tide of public opinion.

    That is why the lib dems are on 5%.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. Flashman (deceased), I fear your optimism is displaced.

    Cameron's negotiation depends on 27 other leaders, including a socialist Frenchman and a German Chancellor who seems determined to make the whole EU obey her will.

    He won't get anything substantial, but will present it as a great deal.

    My concern is that he'll still win the referendum, which will be taking by the foreigners and EU-philes here to mean we want increasing integration.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,815

    Mr. Flashman (deceased), I fear your optimism is displaced.

    Cameron's negotiation depends on 27 other leaders, including a socialist Frenchman and a German Chancellor who seems determined to make the whole EU obey her will.

    He won't get anything substantial, but will present it as a great deal.

    My concern is that he'll still win the referendum, which will be taking by the foreigners and EU-philes here to mean we want increasing integration.

    I think you are overestimating his desire to back "Remain"

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,439

    Mr. Omnium, Commodus was a great historical force too, yet practically nobody [who isn't into history] has even heard of Antoninus Pius.

    Merkel's legacy will depend on how the migration crisis plays out. My fear is it'll go terribly, attract millions from the Middle East and Africa, and also badly affect other European countries (most obviously those south of Germany) and Germany's relationship with those countries.

    Rome tried to replenish its strength by using barbarian muscle. Within a century or so of Valentinian's death Rome fell and an Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy emerged. There are stronger national sentiments and institutions now, but a massive impact will still be felt, I suspect.

    Well you can add me to your 'nobodies' - I don't recall "Antoninus Pius", However if he features in the great works then it's just my memory failing.

    The modern world and Rome are quite different things. I don't think though that they're so far different that your historical lessons are without worth. Rather the opposite.

    "It will go terribly in Germany" - you didn't quite say that, but that's the theme. She has unleashed a storm. I'm both in admiration and fear.

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''My concern is that he'll still win the referendum, which will be taking by the foreigners and EU-philes here to mean we want increasing integration.''

    My concern is Mr Morris is that this issue will shatter the tory party, as it has in the past.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352

    isam said:

    What's the lowest the lib dems have ever polled???

    Depending on team news I am going to dutch Shelvey and Adam to be booked tonight
    Ooh yes I'll have a looksie at that in a min
  • RodCrosby said:

    Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.

    The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.

    Epic fail.

    The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and thus became part of the Constitution. Seven years later the USSC said...

    "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." [my bold] Minor v Happersett (1875)
    2nd Amendment:

    "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited October 2015
    ''I think you are overestimating his desire to back "Remain"

    Oh come on. Europe could give us nothing and Cameron would still back remain. He will never ever back out. Ever.

    And if the polls across Europe are correct, we could be looking at a continent on fire next year. The European establishment's idea of 'listening' to the rise of sceptical parties is to let in two million migrants.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Cameron has one vote in the EU Referendum..the others all belong to us..
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    What's the lowest the lib dems have ever polled???

    I think that Opinium poll rating for them of 5% today is the lowest ever.
    I thought it might be

    Blimey they are in a mess... Seems the coalition has absolutely ruined them.

    I wonder how they can relaunch?
    There is no longer a reason for voting Lib Dem. They're too small to make them a viable check on either main party, their liberalism is tainted in the minds of too many with their spell in government with the Conservatives to make an appeal to the principled left unlikely to succeed and there are more credible receptacles of protest votes. And all their incumbents are excumbents now.

    Unless they can think of a reason for their own existence that convinces anyone else, they're royally buggered.
    Maybe that could attract left leaners that are turned off by Corbyn and McDonnell? The sensible left?

    Maybe if they could get a couple of Labour defectors that'd help
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,664
    Omnium said:

    Miss Plato, one hopes that wrote Merkel a thank you letter.

    Edited extra bit: they*

    I wonder what the Germans will make of Merkel long term? She really is an astonishing force. I simply cannot reconcile her embracing all approach with what I know of the German people. I've no idea whether she's right or wrong, but she is changing everything about Germany.

    Maggie was a similar force in the UK, although I think not as great. We're still to some extent defining our politics relative to her now. As Merkel seems a greater force, and as there's a bigger vacuum for admirable politicians in the recent German history she seems to be destined for quite a historical mark.

    The US, and France need to undergo a similar 'right of passage'.
    I thought Reagan was the US' ...
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352

    Mr. Isam, if they'd gone for Lamb, as I'd advocated, they'd be in a better place to be a boring, steady, soft-left place that Labour supporters who aren't also communists could safely retreat whilst Corbyn ruins the reds with madness.

    Farron should still benefit, but he may come across as a hectoring lecturing self-righteous zealot.

    Oh sorry I just posted something similar without reading your reply! And same to @nigel4england
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    RodCrosby said:

    Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.

    The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.

    Epic fail.

    The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and thus became part of the Constitution. Seven years later the USSC said...

    "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." [my bold] Minor v Happersett (1875)
    2nd Amendment:

    "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
    Yes, the grandfather clause, which ceased to apply in the early 19th C when the last of the Revolutionaries ("the Founders") died out. They obviously could not be nbcs of a country that did not yet exist at the time of their birth (as subjects of King George)...
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 26,369
    edited October 2015
    RodCrosby said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.

    The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.

    Epic fail.

    The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and thus became part of the Constitution. Seven years later the USSC said...

    "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." [my bold] Minor v Happersett (1875)
    2nd Amendment:

    "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
    Yes, the grandfather clause, which ceased to apply in the early 19th C when the last of the Revolutionaries ("the Founders") died out. They obviously could not be nbcs of a country that did not yet exist at the time of their birth (as subjects of King George)...
    You seem to ignore the "or a Citizen of the United States" bit...
  • RodCrosby said:

    Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.

    The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.

    Epic fail.

    The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and thus became part of the Constitution. Seven years later the USSC said...

    "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." [my bold] Minor v Happersett (1875)
    United States v Wong Kim Ark (1897) established it in the nineteenth century and has been reaffirmed repeatedly.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    taffys said:

    ''My concern is that he'll still win the referendum, which will be taking by the foreigners and EU-philes here to mean we want increasing integration.''

    My concern is Mr Morris is that this issue will shatter the tory party, as it has in the past.

    If Cameron starts a civil war in the Conservative Party by a dirty tricks campaign against eurosceptics or by being deceitful about what he has repatriated he will never be forgiven by the base.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,664
    Omnium said:

    Mr. Omnium, Commodus was a great historical force too, yet practically nobody [who isn't into history] has even heard of Antoninus Pius.

    Merkel's legacy will depend on how the migration crisis plays out. My fear is it'll go terribly, attract millions from the Middle East and Africa, and also badly affect other European countries (most obviously those south of Germany) and Germany's relationship with those countries.

    Rome tried to replenish its strength by using barbarian muscle. Within a century or so of Valentinian's death Rome fell and an Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy emerged. There are stronger national sentiments and institutions now, but a massive impact will still be felt, I suspect.

    Well you can add me to your 'nobodies' - I don't recall "Antoninus Pius", However if he features in the great works then it's just my memory failing.

    The modern world and Rome are quite different things. I don't think though that they're so far different that your historical lessons are without worth. Rather the opposite.

    "It will go terribly in Germany" - you didn't quite say that, but that's the theme. She has unleashed a storm. I'm both in admiration and fear.

    'admiration and fear'. Awe seems to be the word with sufficient ambiguity.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    What's the lowest the lib dems have ever polled???

    I think that Opinium poll rating for them of 5% today is the lowest ever.
    I thought it might be

    Blimey they are in a mess... Seems the coalition has absolutely ruined them.

    I wonder how they can relaunch?
    There is no longer a reason for voting Lib Dem. They're too small to make them a viable check on either main party, their liberalism is tainted in the minds of too many with their spell in government with the Conservatives to make an appeal to the principled left unlikely to succeed and there are more credible receptacles of protest votes. And all their incumbents are excumbents now.

    Unless they can think of a reason for their own existence that convinces anyone else, they're royally buggered.
    Maybe that could attract left leaners that are turned off by Corbyn and McDonnell? The sensible left?

    Maybe if they could get a couple of Labour defectors that'd help
    I don't see anything that the Lib Dems could offer that would induce Labour MPs to defect to them. Disgruntled Labour MPs might as well sit as independents.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,389
    edited October 2015
    FTPT

    Alistair said:

    RobD said:

    Mortimer said:

    RobD said:

    LucyJones said:

    Sandpit said:

    On the substantive issue of tax credits, does anyone have a genuine worked through example of someone who will be seriously worse off by the proposed changes in the round? It will need to include minimum wage rise, personal allowance increase and childcare subsidy increases over the past five years.

    My hunch is that those badly affected are working exactly 16 hours a week, an artificial limit which is being removed by Universal Credit.

    I posted this the other day:

    The local Costa is advertising for staff at £7.50 per hour. A married couple, both working full time in said café, with 2 kids, will be £2068 per year worse off from next year according to the calculator in The Telegraph. If they have 3 kids, they will be £2500 worse off. A single parent, working full-time for £7.50/hour will be £1600/year worse off.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11726113/Budget-calculator-work-out-how-your-finances-have-changed.html

    Not everyone on low wage is on minimum wage. The rise in the living wage will not necessarily help all low wage workers in the short run.

    "Thirteen million UK families will lose £260 a year on average because of the Budget's tax and benefits changes, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).

    Tax credit changes could hit three million families, which are likely to lose an average of £1,000, it said.

    Even taking into account higher wages, people receiving tax credits would be "significantly worse off", said Paul Johnson, director of the IFS."
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864




    It would be interesting to see a calculator comparing 2009/10 with 2015/16 or 16/17, so the full range of the changes to the income tax thresholds can be taken into account.
    I knew my Friday night spreadsheeting would come in handy.

    Not integrated credits into it yet, but, for comparison, (total) take-home pay of 2 people each working 40 hours at £7.50, assuming 47 working weeks, was/is as follows:

    2009/10: 23306.51
    2015/16: 25351.36

    I.e., before tax credits are taken into account, £2000 better off.
    So, effectively neutral, as the article states the tax credit change causes a decrease of £2k?
    Depends if that's nominal or inflation adjusted.
    What inflation?
    Bank of England Inflation calculator: £23306.51 in 2009 is equivalent to £27,923.57 (in 2014 Money)
    This is Money Calculator puts it at £27,775.65

    This is because they use RPI rather than CPI and so tracks the cost of housing as well.
  • isam said:

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    What's the lowest the lib dems have ever polled???

    I think that Opinium poll rating for them of 5% today is the lowest ever.
    I thought it might be

    Blimey they are in a mess... Seems the coalition has absolutely ruined them.

    I wonder how they can relaunch?
    There is no longer a reason for voting Lib Dem. They're too small to make them a viable check on either main party, their liberalism is tainted in the minds of too many with their spell in government with the Conservatives to make an appeal to the principled left unlikely to succeed and there are more credible receptacles of protest votes. And all their incumbents are excumbents now.

    Unless they can think of a reason for their own existence that convinces anyone else, they're royally buggered.
    Maybe that could attract left leaners that are turned off by Corbyn and McDonnell? The sensible left?

    Maybe if they could get a couple of Labour defectors that'd help
    Maybe they could "Party" like it's 1981 :lol:
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,815
    JEO said:

    taffys said:

    ''My concern is that he'll still win the referendum, which will be taking by the foreigners and EU-philes here to mean we want increasing integration.''

    My concern is Mr Morris is that this issue will shatter the tory party, as it has in the past.

    If Cameron starts a civil war in the Conservative Party by a dirty tricks campaign against eurosceptics or by being deceitful about what he has repatriated he will never be forgiven by the base.
    JEO - can you see any evidence or point to past history which correlates to that turn of events ?
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    One debate about gods (not) existing, and one about whether Obama is an illegal president. This is a very poor thread.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited October 2015

    RodCrosby said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.

    The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.

    Epic fail.

    The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and thus became part of the Constitution. Seven years later the USSC said...

    "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." [my bold] Minor v Happersett (1875)
    2nd Amendment:

    "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
    Yes, the grandfather clause, which ceased to apply in the early 19th C when the last of the Revolutionaries ("the Founders") died out. They obviously could not be nbcs of a country that did not yet exist at the time of their birth (as subjects of King George)...
    You seem to ignore the "or a Citizen of the United States" bit...
    "...at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." i.e. in 1789! The Citizens of the United States at that time were the people who came together to found the new nation. They obviously could not be nbcs of a country they had just created, but their children could, as offspring of citizens.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,439
    @MD

    Re: Antoninus Pius

    It's all very well and good bringing up historical figures, but when they're as dull as he seems to have been then one has to ask why!?

    I'm happy though that should you outlive me you may mention my doings with completely undeserved respect. "Procedum Omnium".

    So.. Mr Pius - give me his merits!

  • RodCrosby said:

    RodCrosby said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.

    The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.

    Epic fail.

    The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and thus became part of the Constitution. Seven years later the USSC said...

    "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." [my bold] Minor v Happersett (1875)
    2nd Amendment:

    "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
    Yes, the grandfather clause, which ceased to apply in the early 19th C when the last of the Revolutionaries ("the Founders") died out. They obviously could not be nbcs of a country that did not yet exist at the time of their birth (as subjects of King George)...
    You seem to ignore the "or a Citizen of the United States" bit...
    "...at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." i.e. in 1789! The Citizens of the United States at that time were the people who came together to found the new nation. They obviously could not be nbcs of a country they had just created, but their children could, as offspring of citizens.
    It is irrelevant since the Supreme Court ruled in the nineteenth century that citizenship is granted at birth by being born in the USA. Which has been reaffirmed in subsequent rulings.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited October 2015
    JEO - can you see any evidence or point to past history which correlates to that turn of events ?

    A gallant defence of Cam Mr TGOHF, but the problem is we haven't had a referendum since 1975. We are in uncharted territory. The supposed weakness of labour is emboldening Cameron's back bench enemies. I have big concerns on this one.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    RodCrosby said:

    Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.

    The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.

    Epic fail.

    The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and thus became part of the Constitution. Seven years later the USSC said...

    "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." [my bold] Minor v Happersett (1875)
    United States v Wong Kim Ark (1897) established it in the nineteenth century and has been reaffirmed repeatedly.
    Wong was deemed a "citizen" (not a nbc) under the 14th Amendment.

    And we already know the 14th doesn't define an nbc, in any case.

    "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that..."
    Minor v Happersett (1875)
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 14,751
    taffys said:

    ''Switzerland’s anti-immigrant People’s Party [SVP] comes top in parly elections, winning nearly third of vote - its highest score''.

    http://www.politico.eu/article/poll-marion-le-pen-headed-for-victory-france-national-front-elections/

    Holland. Switzerland. And France.

    Denmark and Sweden as well. Possibly Finland.
  • RodCrosby said:

    RodCrosby said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.

    The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.

    )
    2nd Amendment:

    "
    Yes, the grandfather clause, which ceased to apply in the early 19th C when the last of the Revolutionaries ("the Founders") died out. They obviously could not be nbcs of a country that did not yet exist at the time of their birth (as subjects of King George)...
    You seem to ignore the "or a Citizen of the United States" bit...
    "...at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." i.e. in 1789! The Citizens of the United States at that time were the people who came together to found the new nation. They obviously could not be nbcs of a country they had just created, but their children could, as offspring of citizens.
    Granted, yes!

    But as you know

    The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholarship, together with relevant case law, is that "natural born" comprises all people born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including, generally, those born in the United States, those born to U.S. citizen parents in foreign countries, and those born in other situations meeting the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth."[2]

    The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that have addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen. Many eligibility lawsuits from the 2008 and 2012 election cycles were dismissed in lower courts due to the challengers' difficulty in showing that they had standing to raise legal objections. Additionally, some experts have suggested that the precise meaning of the natural-born-citizen clause may never be decided by the courts because, in the end, presidential eligibility may be determined to be a non-justiciable political question that can be decided only by Congress rather than by the judicial branch of government.[3][4]


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. Flashman (deceased), I hope you're right, but believe you're wrong.

    Mr. Omnium, Antoninus Pius basically kept everything running smoothly during Rome's peak. Like Trajan, there's not much written about him, so, despite his prolonged reign and excellence, it's fair enough to not know much.

    I concur that a maelstrom will engulf Merkel. She hasn't so much struck an iceberg as turned the ship and pointed it directly at the North Pole.

    Mr. Taffys, a credible possibility. The new leader offers them opportunity to unite, or deepen the division.

    Mr. Isam, no need to apologise :)

    Unless you're secretly Craig Joubert, of course.

    Mr. Omnium (2), considering what came after, a very peaceful reign is not something to scoff at. What would Syria give for that today?
  • 1897 case law trumps that of 1875 Rod. Though the 14th Amendment as cited in 1897 merely extended to slaves the existing case law that dates back to the then English Common Law that dates back to 1608 that anyone even of alien parents born in England is an English subject. For America it adopted that exact same legal principle for everyone except slaves but calling them citizens rather than subjects.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    Rubio has a chance if the GOP put electability first but like Obama he will have to win the Iowa caucus. At the moment though he may be too pro immigration for the GOP with the base in the mood for a populist after picking two losing establishment moderates
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,815
    Pay attention

    norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 5m5 minutes ago

    Downing Street rule out any further review or consultation on tax credits

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. JEO, Turkey under Erdogan is going in a disturbing direction.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,586
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352

    Mr. JEO, Turkey under Erdogan is going in a disturbing direction.

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,857

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    What's the lowest the lib dems have ever polled???

    I think that Opinium poll rating for them of 5% today is the lowest ever.
    I thought it might be

    Blimey they are in a mess... Seems the coalition has absolutely ruined them.

    I wonder how they can relaunch?
    There is no longer a reason for voting Lib Dem. They're too small to make them a viable check on either main party, their liberalism is tainted in the minds of too many with their spell in government with the Conservatives to make an appeal to the principled left unlikely to succeed and there are more credible receptacles of protest votes. And all their incumbents are excumbents now.

    Unless they can think of a reason for their own existence that convinces anyone else, they're royally buggered.
    Maybe that could attract left leaners that are turned off by Corbyn and McDonnell? The sensible left?

    Maybe if they could get a couple of Labour defectors that'd help
    Maybe they could "Party" like it's 1981 :lol:
    I prefer 1969 when TSE was a TOTP cameraman
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,267
    isam said:

    Mr. JEO, Turkey under Erdogan is going in a disturbing direction.

    That would swtch my vote to Leave.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,392
    isam said:

    Mr. JEO, Turkey under Erdogan is going in a disturbing direction.

    Why the Conservative Party still sticks to this baffles me.
  • Turkey under Erdogan would never join the EU. We should support Turkish accession for the same reasons we supported Polish accession. But only if Turkey is ready to join which it is not now.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,392
    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    What's the lowest the lib dems have ever polled???

    I think that Opinium poll rating for them of 5% today is the lowest ever.
    I thought it might be

    Blimey they are in a mess... Seems the coalition has absolutely ruined them.

    I wonder how they can relaunch?
    There is no longer a reason for voting Lib Dem. They're too small to make them a viable check on either main party, their liberalism is tainted in the minds of too many with their spell in government with the Conservatives to make an appeal to the principled left unlikely to succeed and there are more credible receptacles of protest votes. And all their incumbents are excumbents now.

    Unless they can think of a reason for their own existence that convinces anyone else, they're royally buggered.
    Maybe that could attract left leaners that are turned off by Corbyn and McDonnell? The sensible left?

    Maybe if they could get a couple of Labour defectors that'd help
    I don't see anything that the Lib Dems could offer that would induce Labour MPs to defect to them. Disgruntled Labour MPs might as well sit as independents.
    They could give them a shadow portfolio for a sensible centre-left voice in opposing the Government, and also showing up the lunacy of Corbyn.

    Although, I grant you, it's not a big offer.
Sign In or Register to comment.